std: Ensure OOM is classified as `nounwind`
OOM can't unwind today, and historically it's been optimized as if it can't
unwind. This accidentally regressed with recent changes to the OOM handler, so
this commit adds in a codegen test to assert that everything gets optimized away
after the OOM function is approrpiately classified as nounwind
Closes#50925
Improve `Debug` impl of `time::Duration`
Hi there!
For a long time now, I was getting annoyed by the derived `Debug` impl of `Duration`. Usually, I use `Duration` to either do quick'n'dirty benchmarking or measuring the time of some operation in general. The output of the derived Debug impl is hard to parse for humans: is { secs: 0, nanos: 968360102 } or { secs: 0, nanos 98507324 } longer?
So after running into the annoyance several times (sometimes building my own function to print the Duration properly), I decided to tackle this. Now the output looks like this:
```
Duration::new(1, 0) => 1s
Duration::new(1, 1) => 1.000000001s
Duration::new(1, 300) => 1.0000003s
Duration::new(1, 4000) => 1.000004s
Duration::new(1, 600000) => 1.0006s
Duration::new(1, 7000000) => 1.007s
Duration::new(0, 0) => 0ns
Duration::new(0, 1) => 1ns
Duration::new(0, 300) => 300ns
Duration::new(0, 4001) => 4.001µs
Duration::new(0, 600300) => 600.3µs
Duration::new(0, 7000000) => 7ms
```
Note that I implemented the formatting manually and didn't use floats. No information is "lost" when printing. So `Duration::new(123_456_789_000, 900_000_001)` prints as `123456789000.900000001s`.
~~This is not yet finished~~, but I wanted to open the PR now already in order to get some feedback (maybe everyone likes the derived impl).
### Still ToDo:
- [x] Respect precision ~~and width~~ parameter of the formatter (see [this comment](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/50364#issuecomment-386107107))
### Alternatives/Decisions
- Should large durations displayed in minutes, hours, days, ...? For now, I decided not to because the current formatting is close the how a `Duration` is stored. From this new `Debug` output, you can still easily see what the values of `secs` and `nanos` are. A formatting like `3h 27m 12s 9ms` might be more appropriate for a `Display` impl?
- Should this rather be a `Display` impl and should `Debug` be derived? Maybe this formatting is too fancy for `Debug`? In my opinion it's not and, as already mentioned, from the current format one can still very easily determine the values for `secs` and `nanos`.
- Whitespace between the number and the unit?
### Notes for reviewers
- ~~The combined diff sucks. Rather review both commits individually.~~
- ~~In the unit test, I am building my own type implementing `fmt::Write` to test the output. Maybe there is already something like that which I can use?~~
- My `Debug` impl block is marked as `#[stable(...)]`... but that's fine since the derived Debug impl was stable already, right?
---
~~Apart from the main change, I moved all `time` unit tests into the `tests` directory. All other `libcore` tests are there, so I guess it was simply an oversight. Prior to this change, the `time` tests weren't run, so I guess this is kind of a bug fix. If my `Debug` impl is rejected, I can of course just send the fix as PR.~~ (this was already merged in #50466)
The `FatalError.raise()` might seem unmotivated (in most places in
the compiler, `err.emit()` suffices), but it's actually used to
maintain behavior (viz., stop lexing, don't emit potentially spurious
errors looking for the next token after the bad Unicodepoint in the
exponent): the previous revision's `self.err_span_` ultimately calls
`Handler::emit`, which aborts if the `Handler`'s continue_after_error
flag is set, which seems to typically be true during lexing (see
`phase_1_parse_input` and and how `CompileController::basic` has
`continue_parse_after_error: false` in librustc_driver).
Also, let's avoid apostrophes in error messages (the present author
would argue that users expect a reassuringly detached, formal,
above-it-all tone from a Serious tool like a compiler), and use an
RLS-friendly structured suggestion.
Resolves#49746.
Lone breaks outside of loops create errors in the
loop check pass but as they are not fatal,
compilation continues.
MIR building code assumes all HIR break statements
to point to valid locations and fires ICEs if this
assumption is violated. In normal compilation,
this causes no issues, as code apparently prevents
MIR from being built if errors are present.
However, before that, typecheck runs and with it
MIR const eval. Here we operate differently
from normal compilation: it doesn't check for any
errors except for type checker ones and then
directly builds the MIR.
This constellation causes an ICE-on-error if
bogus break statements are being put into array
length expressions.
This commit fixes this ICE by letting typecheck
fail if bogus break statements are encountered.
This way, MIR const eval fails cleanly with a
type check error.
Fixes#50576Fixes#50581
stabilize RangeBounds collections_range #30877
The FCP for #30877 closed last month, with the decision to:
1. move from `collections::range::RangeArgument` to `ops::RangeBounds`, and
2. rename `start()` and `end()` to `start_bounds()` and `end_bounds()`.
Simon Sapin already moved it to `ops::RangeBounds` in #49163.
I renamed the functions, and removed the old `collections::range::RangeArgument` alias.
This is my first Rust PR, please let me know if I can improve anything. This passes all tests for me, except the `clippy` tool (which uses `RangeArgument::start()`).
I considered deprecating `start()` and `end()` instead of removing them, but the contribution guidelines indicate we can break `clippy` temporarily. I thought it was best to remove the functions, since we're worried about name collisions with `Range::start` and `end`.
Closes#30877.
From [this SO question](https://stackoverflow.com/q/50518757/2733851) it looks like this page isn't really clear.
I personally do think this page is quite clear, the only think I could think of was adding some references.
Fix naming conventions for new lints
We actually have an RFC from Oct 2014 specifying naming conventions for lints that is still relevant - https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0344-conventions-galore.md#lints.
Unfortunately, human memory doesn't work for such prolonged periods of time, so a number of recently added edition-related lints don't follow the conventions.
This PR fixes names for those lints.
Unstable lints, simply renamed:
- `unused_lifetime` -> `unused_lifetimes`
- `absolute_path_not_starting_with_crate` -> `absolute_paths_not_starting_with_crate`
- `unnecessary_extern_crate` -> `unnecessary_extern_crates`
New lints stabilized in the last couple of releases, registered as renamed (old names still work with a warning):
- `single_use_lifetime` -> `single_use_lifetimes`
- `elided_lifetime_in_path` -> `elided_lifetimes_in_paths`
- `bare_trait_object` -> `bare_trait_objects`
- `unstable_name_collision` -> `unstable_name_collisions`
- `unused_doc_comment` -> `unused_doc_comments`
NOT changed, too old to rename:
- `const_err` -> `const_errors`
- `unused_allocation` -> `unused_allocations`
NOT changed, deprecation lints, no need to rename, they are going to be removed anyway:
- `invalid_type_param_default` -> `invalid_type_param_defaults`
- `missing_fragment_specifier` -> `missing_fragment_specifiers`
- `tyvar_behind_raw_pointer` -> `tyvars_behind_raw_pointer`
- `illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern` -> `illegal_floating_point_literal_patterns`
implement the chalk-engine traits
Preliminary implementation for the Chalk traits in rustc. Lots of `panic!()` placeholders to be filled in later.
This is currently blocked on us landing https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/chalk/pull/131 in chalk and issuing a new release, which should occur later today.
r? @scalexm
cc @leodasvacas
OOM can't unwind today, and historically it's been optimized as if it can't
unwind. This accidentally regressed with recent changes to the OOM handler, so
this commit adds in a codegen test to assert that everything gets optimized away
after the OOM function is approrpiately classified as nounwind
Closes#50925
